These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Nerf Webs

Author
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#21 - 2015-10-11 12:48:43 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Same people, same comments, same arguments as before. Totally different OP. Seriously, the suggested change leaves the webs just as strong as they are now minus the ability to effect non propped ships. Which in many cases is fairly slow enough anyway to target anyway. Nobody actually reads the OP they just read the title and/or what they dislike about the paraphrasing, and then comments on that.



I gave you a big list of things you'd be nerfing. You chose to ignore it.

And how does bringing support help if the webs the support ships are using aren't going to slow the target down either?


I ignored your response because you ignored the OP. Your list of "nerfs" would effectively be reduced by half. The OP suggestion implies that the speed loss remain the same, but not so that the velocity lost reaches a negative. The thing as a whole accomplishes the same objective.

Effecting the targets propulsion bonus so that it is essentially negated forces the target to either turn off their propulsion or keep it on, use cap unnecessarily, and suffer the mass penalty for nothing. Ultimately the target is slow enough to be tracked by a variety of things. Not to mention in that range they are likely to be under neut pressure and drones.

PvE is a valid counter argument though.
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#22 - 2015-10-11 12:57:41 UTC
You mean to tell me that a guy needs help fighting a frigate, so his support brings something else that can't track the frigate either? Great Idea.

Battleships were forced into obsolescence after WWII because they were big and expensive and they were often sunk by smaller vessels (primarily Destroyers) and fighter-bombers that would be "out-track" their guns and deliver torpedoes and other explosives. I really think that Battleships should be things that are supported by things like they were realistically.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#23 - 2015-10-11 13:15:22 UTC
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
You mean to tell me that a guy needs help fighting a frigate, so his support brings something else that can't track the frigate either? Great Idea.

Battleships were forced into obsolescence after WWII because they were big and expensive and they were often sunk by smaller vessels (primarily Destroyers) and fighter-bombers that would be "out-track" their guns and deliver torpedoes and other explosives. I really think that Battleships should be things that are supported by things like they were realistically.


This isn't real life.

My point stands, turret battleships will be made all but helpless with this nerf vs small, fast ships at close range no matter what they do.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#24 - 2015-10-11 13:21:17 UTC
You are aware that putting something like optimal+falloff to web mechanics, something like *no webs* or even *reduce only propped speed* would severely harm the fighting outnumbered gameplay many of us enjoy, that defensive webbing would take a shot to the head and blobbing people to death would see a buff in the end?

No, web mechanics are in a fine place, don't meddle with critical tools for rangekeeping unless you want melee slugfests.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#25 - 2015-10-11 13:23:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Offering clarity as to "Why" specifically; the concept of flatly slowing ships down is sort of "unnatural". There is no precedent for this kind of mechanic in any similar game. It serves to flatly decrease the range of movement options that the opponent has while under it effect. While that does have its explicitly intended purpose, it becomes a sort of staple in much of brawling in general and reduces many of brawling engagements to straight up slugfests where mobility is essentially negated.



You must not have rolled melee dps or been up against those that used it properly. Changing of speed is a common melee dps cast/call/action/etc. Either they slow you down or they get a speed boost to be faster.

Eve is an space MMO rpg. This carried over. It can't have the term melee dps since its eve (want to bust balls use the many forms of healz or healer to an eve purist when talking about reps/logi, this bait always works), but same principals apply to tackle, fast response dps, etc. end result the same....you are moving as if in molasses in January and they are buzzing around really fast.


Want to get more modern.....here is how I "webbed" in WoT. I'd shoot out tracks. Only got 1 the repair kit. Use it up on that...well me or someone else would track you again. Game kind of enforced this. My gun sans gold ammo not doing a damn thing otherwise I will cripple your tracks all day long since its the only thing I could hit worth a damn. Sometimes double tracking for the added fun. Turnabout is fair play....this done to me quite often as well.


Don't like webs know or predict what may run them and avoid them. If a brawler...well that running them is cheesy is your pov. Others its not.


The bs bringing support bit...sometimes your support is busy if actually brought along. Nice to have the self help there in that case.
Arla Sarain
#26 - 2015-10-11 13:44:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Arla Sarain
baltec1 wrote:
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
You mean to tell me that a guy needs help fighting a frigate, so his support brings something else that can't track the frigate either? Great Idea.

Battleships were forced into obsolescence after WWII because they were big and expensive and they were often sunk by smaller vessels (primarily Destroyers) and fighter-bombers that would be "out-track" their guns and deliver torpedoes and other explosives. I really think that Battleships should be things that are supported by things like they were realistically.


This isn't real life.

My point stands, turret battleships will be made all but helpless with this nerf vs small, fast ships at close range no matter what they do.

They will go from double web to
web+TP+tracking rigs.

Who the hell uses tracking rigs otherwise?

Some numbers might have to be adjusted. But you also can't ignore the fact that turret tracking in general is the only mechanic that can be exploited both ways (application or mitigation) through piloting alone.

Although all in all, I don't think webs need a nerf. I think small turret tracking needs a nerf, small drones need a sig increase to compensate, and perhaps webs could get a max velocity cap same way Entosis links have/had. The former will allow sig tanking for frigates V frigate when scrammed/webbed, the latter will finally kick the kite meta in the ballsack it deserves, without making further speed upgrades irrelevant (since it will basically add resistance to being slowed by multiple webs before further speed decreases can be noticed)
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#27 - 2015-10-11 13:45:36 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
You mean to tell me that a guy needs help fighting a frigate, so his support brings something else that can't track the frigate either? Great Idea.

Battleships were forced into obsolescence after WWII because they were big and expensive and they were often sunk by smaller vessels (primarily Destroyers) and fighter-bombers that would be "out-track" their guns and deliver torpedoes and other explosives. I really think that Battleships should be things that are supported by things like they were realistically.


This isn't real life.

My point stands, turret battleships will be made all but helpless with this nerf vs small, fast ships at close range no matter what they do.


Well as it stands battleships are defenseless versus the small fast ships that stick to you from long range. It doesn't defeat the fact that you are helpless versus the small ships regardless, it just changes the way that that is applied.
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#28 - 2015-10-11 13:46:46 UTC
Arla Sarain wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
You mean to tell me that a guy needs help fighting a frigate, so his support brings something else that can't track the frigate either? Great Idea.

Battleships were forced into obsolescence after WWII because they were big and expensive and they were often sunk by smaller vessels (primarily Destroyers) and fighter-bombers that would be "out-track" their guns and deliver torpedoes and other explosives. I really think that Battleships should be things that are supported by things like they were realistically.


This isn't real life.

My point stands, turret battleships will be made all but helpless with this nerf vs small, fast ships at close range no matter what they do.

They will go from double web to
web+TP+tracking rigs.

Who the hell uses tracking rigs otherwise?

Some numbers might have to be adjusted. But you also can't ignore the fact that turret tracking in general is the only mechanic that can be exploited both ways (application or mitigation) through piloting alone.

Although all in all, I don't think webs need a nerf. I think small turret tracking needs a nerf, small drones need a sig increase to compensate, and perhaps webs could get a max velocity cap same way Entosis links have/had. The former will allow sig tanking for frigates V frigate when scrammed/webbed, the latter will finally kick the kite meta in the ballsack it deserves, without making further speed upgrades irrelevant (since it will basically add resistance to being slowed by multiple webs before further speed decreases can be noticed)


I am fine with this.
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#29 - 2015-10-11 13:50:00 UTC
Zan Shiro wrote:
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Offering clarity as to "Why" specifically; the concept of flatly slowing ships down is sort of "unnatural". There is no precedent for this kind of mechanic in any similar game. It serves to flatly decrease the range of movement options that the opponent has while under it effect. While that does have its explicitly intended purpose, it becomes a sort of staple in much of brawling in general and reduces many of brawling engagements to straight up slugfests where mobility is essentially negated.



You must not have rolled melee dps or been up against those that used it properly. Changing of speed is a common melee dps cast/call/action/etc. Either they slow you down or they get a speed boost to be faster.

Eve is an space MMO rpg. This carried over. It can't have the term melee dps since its eve (want to bust balls use the many forms of healz or healer to an eve purist when talking about reps/logi, this bait always works), but same principals apply to tackle, fast response dps, etc. end result the same....you are moving as if in molasses in January and they are buzzing around really fast.


Want to get more modern.....here is how I "webbed" in WoT. I'd shoot out tracks. Only got 1 the repair kit. Use it up on that...well me or someone else would track you again. Game kind of enforced this. My gun sans gold ammo not doing a damn thing otherwise I will cripple your tracks all day long since its the only thing I could hit worth a damn. Sometimes double tracking for the added fun. Turnabout is fair play....this done to me quite often as well.


Don't like webs know or predict what may run them and avoid them. If a brawler...well that running them is cheesy is your pov. Others its not.


The bs bringing support bit...sometimes your support is busy if actually brought along. Nice to have the self help there in that case.


Shooting out treads on a tank is something you actively do webbing just happens, melee range in other games can be effectively exited by moving out of melee range, by running other than dota's intrinsic slowing elements confined to specific characters this does not occur anywhere else in this fashion.
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#30 - 2015-10-11 13:57:10 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
You are aware that putting something like optimal+falloff to web mechanics, something like *no webs* or even *reduce only propped speed* would severely harm the fighting outnumbered gameplay many of us enjoy, that defensive webbing would take a shot to the head and blobbing people to death would see a buff in the end?

No, web mechanics are in a fine place, don't meddle with critical tools for rangekeeping unless you want melee slugfests.


I fight largely outnumbered a significantly large portion of the time. I even avoid using webs not only because of my aversion for them, but also because they are less effective defensively than dual prop. Trust me, this wouldn't be hurting the asymmetrical warfare it would probably help it seeing as kiting wouldn't be the only way to engage in it if webs didn't exist.
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#31 - 2015-10-11 13:59:09 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
You mean to tell me that a guy needs help fighting a frigate, so his support brings something else that can't track the frigate either? Great Idea.

Battleships were forced into obsolescence after WWII because they were big and expensive and they were often sunk by smaller vessels (primarily Destroyers) and fighter-bombers that would be "out-track" their guns and deliver torpedoes and other explosives. I really think that Battleships should be things that are supported by things like they were realistically.


This isn't real life.

My point stands, turret battleships will be made all but helpless with this nerf vs small, fast ships at close range no matter what they do.


Did I already mention that your point does not stand? Because it does not. Maybe if EVE took more inspiration from real life it would have more diverse and tactically viable ships in fleet compositions instead of masses of whatever ship is op at the time.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#32 - 2015-10-11 14:06:48 UTC
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:


Did I already mention that your point does not stand? Because it does not. Maybe if EVE took more inspiration from real life it would have more diverse and tactically viable ships in fleet compositions instead of masses of whatever ship is op at the time.


Yet here you are arguing for 16 ships to be removed from my options for solo play. My point still stands, you would massively harm turret battleships.
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2015-10-11 14:17:06 UTC
Generally in pvp, especially solo pvp, if a blaster boat gets one webbed one is usually screwed. So in a way I agree that it needs tweaking.
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#34 - 2015-10-11 14:26:14 UTC
Yes I do recommend they be removed for solo play. At least within tactical perspective, but ultimately they would end up in the same state that they are now, viable for solo, but not optimally due to the current meta. Honestly, this change by itself wouldn't even affect your ships ability to solo to any extent.

The change is extremely minimalist; it would drag ships to slowing down to an extent where they are not un-traceable in any case they would still be under heavy neut pressure, scrams, and drones. Not to mention they would still have to fave the very real possibility of being struck by your guns anyway, or being forced to disengage, which would open them up to your guns anyway.

You are so caught up in the fact that your way of life MIGHT be disturbed that you are attacking the OP in your defense without considering the implications of it. Chances are with this web change that the OP suggests essentially would add up to 1 web accounting for almost 2 and seeing as you are likely to be equipping 1-2 webs anyway the objective you are seeking is still achieved with only slightly less impunity than before.

What is going on here is that you are just rigidly looking at the word "nerf" which was used for nothing more than to gain interest in the actual suggestion, and then began your defensive tirade to deny a thing which you only even contemplated for seconds.
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#35 - 2015-10-11 14:29:36 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
Generally in pvp, especially solo pvp, if a blaster boat gets one webbed one is usually screwed. So in a way I agree that it needs tweaking.


I don't like the idea of any ship at any time just being "screwed", but I don't like the idea of smalls being weak to larges or mids just because they are cheaper either. I don't want to throw large ships under the bus, but it is much easier for a BS to bring a support Caracal or Thrasher or Svipul to back it up from 1-3 frigates than it is for the 1-3 frigates to bring anti BS support. Not without escalating the fight to another scale, and in that case the solo bs is screwed anyway.
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#36 - 2015-10-11 14:35:32 UTC
Webs generally not a good idea from a gameplay standard, they serve to incentivize an aversion to a certain type of playstyle altogether because they exclude smaller ships of any varying class of truly participating in engagements when the larger ship class is available, because large ship classes can just force the smaller one at bay at low transversals when in enough of a group so that they are blapped, but if they get in close to try to avoid that they get webbed by all of the ships anyway and then proceedingly get blapped.

It is the literal equivalent of capital weapons being used on subcaps with impunity.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#37 - 2015-10-11 14:54:52 UTC
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Yes I do recommend they be removed for solo play. At least within tactical perspective, but ultimately they would end up in the same state that they are now, viable for solo, but not optimally due to the current meta. Honestly, this change by itself wouldn't even affect your ships ability to solo to any extent.

The change is extremely minimalist; it would drag ships to slowing down to an extent where they are not un-traceable in any case they would still be under heavy neut pressure, scrams, and drones. Not to mention they would still have to fave the very real possibility of being struck by your guns anyway, or being forced to disengage, which would open them up to your guns anyway.

You are so caught up in the fact that your way of life MIGHT be disturbed that you are attacking the OP in your defense without considering the implications of it. Chances are with this web change that the OP suggests essentially would add up to 1 web accounting for almost 2 and seeing as you are likely to be equipping 1-2 webs anyway the objective you are seeking is still achieved with only slightly less impunity than before.

What is going on here is that you are just rigidly looking at the word "nerf" which was used for nothing more than to gain interest in the actual suggestion, and then began your defensive tirade to deny a thing which you only even contemplated for seconds.


I only needed seconds because I know how these ships work. Any frigate that is in web range is also in scram range yet even with its MWD turned off I still need the web to get hits on it even with blasters. Nerf webs and you now have a situation where a frigate at close range is impervious to my weapons. This nerf more or less makes webs utterly pointless to fit and turret battleships unable to do anything. It is already far from easy to get hits even with a web, you do not need to nerf it any more.
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#38 - 2015-10-11 15:04:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Mina Sebiestar
Totally curve ball here but i would like to see size to effectiveness implemented ie (e-war only)

Small hulls using web get 60% on small targets 40% on med hulls 20% on large no bueno on XL what so ever. (small pros here would be web drones being a thing when engaging more than you can chew)

Large hulls using web on large 20% med 40% small 60% XL 10%.

Same goes for point / scram


Small hull using it on small give 100% hold using it on med size hulls give 80% chance that it will hold that ship at each new cycle using it on large target give you 60% chance point / scram will hold at start of each cycle. (bring friends or hunt what you can SOLO deal with)


This way i think more ppl would undock and roam with heavier ship to go true solo than now if ship mass ie hull size play role in more profound way than currently is and deliver some deterrent (other than millon dps zillion HP and pulverizing device like titan dd )

Side note i do believe EvE promote blob ware in order of magnitude more over solo play and i don't consider it good or healthy for a game.

My 2c feel free to ignore it.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard

Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#39 - 2015-10-11 16:07:21 UTC
[/quote]

I only needed seconds because I know how these ships work. Any frigate that is in web range is also in scram range yet even with its MWD turned off I still need the web to get hits on it even with blasters. Nerf webs and you now have a situation where a frigate at close range is impervious to my weapons. This nerf more or less makes webs utterly pointless to fit and turret battleships unable to do anything. It is already far from easy to get hits even with a web, you do not need to nerf it any more.[/quote]


I disagree, I am frequently on the other end of that spectrum, and a web on its own is enough to handle a lot of business on a frigate, from the battleship's perspective seeing as the battleship is extremely likely to have neuts AND drones. In more cases than not is the neuts plus the scram and the singular web that make the kill on the frigate from the battleship.

You only needed seconds because you read the title, not the OP. You may know how those ships work, but I know exactly how this situation plays out, whichever way you cut it, the frigate is at a HUGE disadvantage, but that doesn't matter, but the point is that this change, under the stipulations that the battleship is engaging the frigate the result of the webs effect is almost the same the single web that you have on the battleship would be enough to slow an af down to slightly less than half. With this it would simply be at its base speed if it was using an afterburner which is at actually a greater loss than the webs we have currently; however, it would remove the agility penalties that effect the frigate so that it can actually maneuver still and not just be a brick in space with absolutely no relative tank whatsoever.

Seriously, the entire point of the ship class is so that it maneuver under the guns of larger vessels and fight that way. That is literally how the ship is supposed to work, but currently it doesn't work that way unless you gimp the fit and/or bring skirmish links, or just avoid the situation altogether by bringing and interceptor and/or garmur to mess with your life the exact same way, and that is exactly what happens now, there is so much anti-tackle, anti-brawl equipment available, that people just forgo brawling in that respect altogether. Your battleship should be worthless against a frigate that is underneath your guns, that is the point of the entire class, but this change the OP suggests doesn't even go that far, and you still don't get that.

Tell me what is worse, having a frigate underneath your guns that you can not hit with your main weapons but still have scram/web/neuts active on or, a kitey Garmur/Interceptor pointing you from 30-40k away that you can not interact with at all other than when he ninja dives you for a scram to stop your mjd. That is exactly what the meta is like right now. At least the brawler frigate has to come into range and during that window you have a chance to deal massive damage, and cripple it before it even gets into scram range. Current meta doesn't call for that though, you know why? Because it is hardly possible, and why do it when I can easy mode kite you? You know why the current meta is kite oriented? Because brawling harshly forces commitment. Kiting does not. Brawling is a near death trap against a larger target because scrams/webs/neuts/drones. Kiting doesn't have to deal with three of those things and only scarcely is bothered by the fourth.

When you are up against a larger ship, he basically has a triad of modules that very well can make impossible to enter commitment range, against him. Kiting deals with none of that, maybe if brawling wasn't such a terrible option for engaging a large majority of targets like that, the meta wouldn't be what it is today, but I guess you like having an Orthrus kite your battleship to death; it is more dignified right?
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#40 - 2015-10-11 16:08:18 UTC
Mina Sebiestar wrote:
Totally curve ball here but i would like to see size to effectiveness implemented ie (e-war only)

Small hulls using web get 60% on small targets 40% on med hulls 20% on large no bueno on XL what so ever. (small pros here would be web drones being a thing when engaging more than you can chew)

Large hulls using web on large 20% med 40% small 60% XL 10%.

Same goes for point / scram


Small hull using it on small give 100% hold using it on med size hulls give 80% chance that it will hold that ship at each new cycle using it on large target give you 60% chance point / scram will hold at start of each cycle. (bring friends or hunt what you can SOLO deal with)


This way i think more ppl would undock and roam with heavier ship to go true solo than now if ship mass ie hull size play role in more profound way than currently is and deliver some deterrent (other than millon dps zillion HP and pulverizing device like titan dd )

Side note i do believe EvE promote blob ware in order of magnitude more over solo play and i don't consider it good or healthy for a game.

My 2c feel free to ignore it.


Anything at this point is better than bittervet ramble.